(Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President):

This is insurer’s appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 05.03.2013 passed by the District Forum, Tehri Garhwal in consumer complaint No. 01 of 2011.  By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant – opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the respondent – complainant together with interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment.  The complainant was directed to assure that the said amount is paid to the legal heirs of the deceased employee of the complainant – insured and to file the receipt and affidavit in this regard before the District Forum.

2.       Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant is a partnership firm, which was carrying out a construction contract of 100 mt. span suspension bridge over Pinder River granted by the Public Works Department, Tharali.  The complainant had taken a Workmen’s Compensation (General) Policy from the opposite party – United India Insurance Company Limited for coverage of 5 employees engaged in construction activity.  The said policy was valid for the period from 10.07.2009 to 09.07.2010.  It was alleged that during the currency of the insurance policy, one labourer, namely, Sh. Narendra Kumar S/o Sh. Rajpal, R/o Adarsh Nagar, Lane No. 60, P.S. Najibabad, District Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh died on 23.11.2009 during the course of his employment.  The postmortem of the deceased employee was carried out and Panchnama was also prepared.  The complainant lodged the claim with the insurance company, which was not settled.  Thereafter alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Tehri Garhwal.  

3.       The insurance company filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the deceased – employee of the complainant died at Chamoli during the course of his employment and hence the District Forum at Tehri Garhwal has no territorial jurisdiction in the matter; that the complaint ought to have been filed by the legal heirs of the deceased – employee of the complainant and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.

4.       The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 05.03.2013 in the above terms.  Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has filed the present appeal.         

5.       None appeared on behalf of respondent – complainant.  We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant – insurance company and have also perused the record.   

6.       There is no dispute that the complainant – insured had taken Workmen’s Compensation (General) Policy from the insurance company, wherein his 5 employees were covered.  There is also no dispute that during the currency of the insurance policy, Sh. Narendra Kumar, an employee of the complainant – insured died during the course of his employment and at the time of his death, he was engaged in construction of 100 mt. span suspension bridge over Pinder River, contract whereof was granted by the Public Works Department, Tharali to the complainant – insured.

7.       The insurance company has taken the plea that since the deceased died at Chamoli during the course of his employment and hence the District Forum at Tehri Garhwal had no territorial jurisdiction in the matter.  We do not find any force in the submission raised on behalf of the insurance company.  The reason being that the insurance policy in question was issued by United India Insurance Company Limited, Kailash Gate, Muni-Ki-Reti, District Tehri Garhwal, which was impleaded as opposite party in the consumer complaint and hence it can not be said that District Forum, Tehri Garhwal had no territorial jurisdiction in the matter in issue.    

8.       It has also been stressed on behalf of the insurance company that since the legal heirs of the deceased employee of the complainant – insured have not filed the consumer complaint and, as such, the same is not maintainable.  We also do not find any force in the said plea of the insurance company.  As is stated above, the insurance policy in question was taken by the complainant – insured for covering his 5 employees in the event of any mishap / accident.  The amount of premium was also paid by the complainant.  Since the employee of the complainant – insured has died during the course of his employment and hence his legal heirs have to be indemnified for the loss suffered by them on account of death of the deceased.  The District Forum has also taken note of this fact and has passed a direction to the effect that the complainant shall assure that the amount of compensation is paid to the legal heirs of the deceased employee, which is quite justified and logical.  There is no dispute with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the District Forum.  Even otherwise, the District Forum has awarded the insured amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- together with interest @6% p.a., which can not be said to be excessive.

9.       The District Forum has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and has passed a reasoned order, which does not call for any interference and the appeal being devoid of any merit, is liable to be dismissed.

10.     For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is dismissed.  No order as to costs. 

(SMT. VEENA SHARMA)                        (D.K. TYAGI)                         (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL)

K